Tuesday, September 28, 2010

The following is an excerpt from my book, Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” -- Chapter One.* * * * *

Many Protestants (and Catholics) are unaware that the Council of Trent does not absolutely rule out all notions whatever of justification by faith alone or even of imputation of God’s righteousness. It condemns only extreme versions of these notions. For example:

Canon IX. If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

We observe, then, that Canon 9 anathematized not faith alone (in the sense of initial justification) per se, but a minimalist, absolute position on faith alone that excludes further necessary cooperation, or “outworking” of the same faith. The term “faith alone” is carefully qualified and defined, but it is not itself rejected (the key phrase being “in such wise as to mean”).

Another way of looking at this is to say that Canon 9 doesn’t absolutely forbid imputed justification, either, as an aspect of justification, but rather, only the notion that justification consists solely of imputation. The next canon makes it clear that there is indeed a proper sense of imputed justification or “extrinsic” or “declarative” or “external” righteousness:

Canon X. If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

Again, what is asserted is the denial of a minimalist view. The first clause espouses initial imputed, external justification (“the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us”). But the second clause condemns the legalistic extreme of making this alone the cause of justification, as if there is no cooperation required (assuming the person proceeds on with his life after initial justification). Imputation is present (and indeed necessary) but not sufficient unto salvation, in and of itself. The next canon reiterates:

Canon XI. If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

We are initially justified by “the justice of Christ” and “grace,” but we are not justified by a “sole imputation.” Imputation is, thus, a truth of Catholic soteriology, but it is not the “whole ball of wax” of salvation. In this sense, and this one alone, Catholics deny imputed justification and justification by faith alone. Canons 1-3, in their condemnation of Pelagianism and salvation by works, assert essentially the same notion from a different vantage-point: the initial grace and justification comes from God, and God alone.

Moreover, it is made clear elsewhere in this section of Tridentine decrees, that justification by faith is also a Catholic concept, and that even justification by faith alone is properly applied to the stage of initial justification:

Chapter VIII. (In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously).

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Even the cause of the human faith, that brings about justification, is God’s grace: so that there is not the slightest hint or trace of Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism (yet Catholics, for some reason, are falsely accused of these heresies to this day). Chapter 5 concurs (“the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ” / “disposed through His quickening and assisting grace” / “God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost”).

Initial imputation and justification by faith alone in the first stages of justification are reiterated elsewhere in the same section:

Chapter VII. (What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.)

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God . . .

. . . the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father . . .

. . . the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just . . .

. . . no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit . . .

Chapter X. (On the increase of Justification received.)

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, . . . they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, . . .

9 comments:

I am so happy to see this. I've been waiting for a good Catholic explication of these facts which are so often overlooked by Calvinists and other Protestants.

The single potential concern I have, which you might want to make clearer before publishing: in your comments on Canon 9, you say it "anathematized not faith alone (in the sense of initial justification) per se, but a minimalist, absolute position on faith alone that excludes further necessary cooperation, or 'outworking' of the same faith."

Well, Canon 9 IS referring to initial justification in that passage. We know because, compare it to chapter 4, which defines the Council's use of the word justification: "In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior."

That refers to initial justification. THAT is what Canon 9 says does not happen by faith alone, insofar as that means no cooperation of the will is involved.

Your explanation gave me the impression that you think the cooperation in Canon 9 was only after initial justification. I hope you didn't mean that, so you should make it more clear, in my opinion; but if you did mean that, perhaps you should think about it more in light of that context from chapter 4 and change it to reflect that context.

I think the paper is fine as it stands. The initial impetus (especially in the section you note) came directly from Dr. Kenneth Howell: the Catholic professor who used to be a Reformed pastor.

It depends on when initial justification occurs. God initiates the whole thing in any event. If initial justification occurs as an infant, then there is no cooperation in the nature of the case. But God wholly initiates the grace and movement towards salvation. If we say He does not do so, it is Pelagian heresy.

If someone is an adult when initial justification occurs (having never been baptized) then he or she has the responsibility of cooperating in the process (once God begins). He or she could exercise faith alone at the very beginning, and be initially justified without any works involved. But that is strictly a temporary condition.

In any event, we can't cooperate in the very first stages of initial justification, if by that we mean that we start the "ball rolling" alongside God, simultaneously. He is the lone originator of the process. In that sense it is monergistic. Otherwise, it is semi-Pelagianism, which is roundly condemned by both 2nd Orange and Trent.

This is the concern and false charge of our Protestant brethren, so we have to take the greatest pains to articulate it accurately.

If they read your comment, many would say it smacks of semi-Pelagianism, even if that is not your belief or intent.

I would agree that initial justification is by faith alone if you mean by that, as you do, that so-called "works" are excluded. However, I think that expressing it in this way can be confusing because it tends to lend support to the Protestant (and for that matter Augustinian) exegetical error that the "works" that Paul says are not involved in justification are something broader than works of the Jewish Law; that is, Torah observances.

In fact, Paul regarded Abraham's act of faith as a good work, which is why he said it could be credited to him for righteousness. (This instance of justification was not "initial.")

Yet it is true that one cannot do good works unless one is righteous. So in that sense good works could never precede the transformation from unrighteousness to righteousness that is initial justification. But this is a matter of logic. It's not something that Paul or anyone else in the New Testament ever asserts in so many words. Jesus implies it, though, when He says that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.

Moreover, I would suggest that faith is never alone, even in initial justification, because it is always accompanied by love and hope. God does not inspire faith in a soul, without at the same time kindling love and instilling hope.

Finally, I don't think there's any "imputation of the righteousness of Christ" in the Bible, and so I personally wouldn't use that phrase. Paul, in Romans 4, says that faith is imputed as righteousness. And, since this is the only time that he uses a word that can be translated as "impute," this excludes imputation of Christ's righteousnness. Otherwise, two things would be imputed: Faith, which Paul mentions, and Christ's righteousness, which he never mentions. Mine is an exegetical argument. (Also, I don't think Trent's decree requires us to suppose that there is such a thing as the imputation of Christ's righteousness, although it may leave open the possibility.)

One of the condemned propositions of Jansenism said that "the semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace for all acts, even the beginning of faith but they fell into heresy pretending that this grace is such that man may either follow or resist it." (Catholic Encyclopedia)

If the Jansenists were wrong here, this implies that the doctrine of resistibility of the first grace is not heretical. In terms of this doctrine a "yes" to God's prevenient grace seems to precede initial justification in adults (while a "no" would prevent it): and wouldn't this "yes" be an act of charity under the influence of grace? Therefore such an act would precede initial justification in adults even if it did not merit it de condigno.

I appreciate your work here, work that Akin totally bypasses in his The Salavation Controversy. Yet, where do you get that we receive an initial imputation of righteousness but then it becomes conditional? How can that be if Christ is our federal/Representative head? It seems that you want the initial value of that headship but then it just doesn't stay, which really means you have no federal headship in Christ. Provisional headship that can be lost is not headship, it's something altogether different than the federal headship in Romans 5 and elsewhere.

I appreciate your work here, work that Akin totally bypasses in his The Salavation Controversy. Yet, where do you get that we receive an initial imputation of righteousness but then it becomes conditional? How can that be if Christ is our federal/Representative head? It seems that you want the initial value of that headship but then it just doesn't stay, which really means you have no federal headship in Christ. Provisional headship that can be lost is not headship, it's something altogether different than the federal headship in Romans 5 and elsewhere.

I "get that" the NT also teaches that salvation or justification or a state of grace can be lost if we don't persevere in the free grace that God grants us initially through baptism and justification. Many passages teach this: most from St. Paul, so it has to be included in the overall equation. Paul says we must persevere, watch, be careful to stand, etc.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

Dave is basically the reason why I am the knowledgeable and passionate Catholic I am today. When I first decided in college to learn more about my Catholic faith, I read all of the tracts at Catholic Answers ... but then I needed more. I needed to move beyond the basics. Dave was the only one who had what I needed. I poured over his various dialogues and debates and found the answers to even the most obscure questions. His work showed me that there really is an answer to every conceivable question of and objection to the Catholic faith. That was a revelation for me, and it is one I will never forget. My own apologetical style (giving point-by-point rebuttals, relying heavily on Scripture, and being as thorough as possible) is influenced very heavily by his, and to this day I continue to learn and grow a great deal through his work explaining and defending the Catholic faith.

--- Nicholas Hardesty (DRE and apologist, 28 May 2015)

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.

I know you spend countless hours writing about and defending the Church. There may not be any American apologist who puts in more labor than you. You've been a hard-working laborer in the vineyard for a long time.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

--- Richard Olsen (Evangelical Protestant), 26 November 2012.

Dave writes a powerful message out of deep conviction and careful study. I strongly recommend the reading of his books. While not all readers will find it possible to agree with all his conclusions, every reader will gain much insight from reading carefully a well-crafted view that may be different from their own.

--- Jerome Smith (Evangelical Protestant and editor of The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge), 26 May 2015 on LinkedIn.

I think it's really inspirational, Dave, that you pursue your passion and calling in this way, understanding that it's financially difficult, but making it work anyway. You and I don't agree, but I have to respect the choice as opposed to being some sort of corporate sell out that may make decent money but lives without purpose. You can tell your grandkids what you did with your life, whereas some corporate VP will say that he helped drive a quarterly stock price up briefly and who cares? It's cool to see.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).